On Character and Courage

This is another week of processing raw thoughts about leading. This past week, two newspapers, the Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post, announced that they would not endorse a candidate in the upcoming US presidential election. While politics are at the center of this, my concerns are not political. A newspaper has the prerogative to endorse any candidate it chooses. It can also choose not to endorse, though a principled decision not to endorse should have been made much earlier in the election cycle.

In the piece announcing the Washington Post’s decision, publisher William Lewis called the decision one of “character and courage.” Those two words have a lot to do with leading, and they are my concerns here. Those two words need defending.

To have high character is to act with integrity, putting mission and purpose above self-interest, and being transparent about one’s motivations. Character is saying what one means and meaning what one says.

Courage is demonstrating character through uncertainty and adversity. Courage is standing for what one believes in despite the consequences. Courage requires telling truth to power.

In my years of researching and teaching leadership, character and courage consistently emerge as motivators of committed followership. They are behaviors that attract more followers and carry them through difficult circumstances.

The decisions made by the owners of the two newspapers have resulted in just the opposite: there have been staff resignations and a surge of subscription cancellations. The former result from the decisions not to endorse coming after an endorsement was drafted (and shortly after one candidate threatened media outlets who oppose him). The latter emerge because readers detect far more calculation and convenience than character or courage.

As a leader, when you do something can be as important as what or how you do something. As mentioned above, a decision not to endorse months earlier could have been seen as principled. Both owners have interests with the federal government through their other businesses, and they might truly want to be seen as neutral. Instead, coming less than two weeks before a tightly contested election, the owners appear to be hedging their bets.

The decisions were made by the owners, overriding the decisions of their editorial staffs. The larger lesson for leaders is about trust. If you cannot trust the judgement of your people, you have hired the wrong people. The purpose of an editorial board is to oversee the opinion pages and the writers who contribute to those pages. Opinions are what they do. Opinions spark conversation and controversy. Try submitting an op-ed piece about an important issue where your position is to stand neither here nor there. Don’t hold your breath waiting to hear back.

Many business leaders have stepped back from weighing in on political or social issues. That makes sense if you sell deodorant or logistics services. You want to comment on that which is relevant to your business. Many have also contributed to candidates from both parties to manage political risk. That also makes sense. However, when you are in the news business, part of the job is holding those who have or seek power to account. In the news pages, you try to be as objective as you can, reporting without fear or favor. The editorial pages are more subjective, yet still have high standards. The much-maligned mainstream media actually takes these ideas quite seriously. If that’s where you want to lead, you must embrace them, too.

When you lead, character and courage are essential. Followers see them and see through attempts to fake them. Your legitimacy hangs in the balance.

Comments and shares welcome. No links in the comments this week (paywalls).